Research groups, including the American Psychological Association, agree that frequent social media use is harming the mental health of minors.

As a result.

Some countries have already banned social media for children under age 16.

House Bill 227, in Kentucky would cause social media accounts belonging to children under age 16 to be deleted, and only reinstated with parental consent.

Our Mackenzie Spring brings us the committee discussion around protecting minors online while still protecting their First Amendment rights.

That kicks off tonight's legislative update.

If House Bill 227 passes, children under 16 would have access to social media accounts with parental consent, but their feeds wouldn't look the same.

Large social media companies couldn't implement so-called addictive features like personalized algorithms and push notifications on those minors accounts.

These social media platforms are very aware that constant scrolling autoplay videos, constant push notifications.

The feedback loop is what children get addicted to.

Opponents of the bill argue it would violate the First Amendment rights of the social media companies, as well as minors.

Minors do have a constitutional right to access social media.

But HB 227 would prohibit platforms from allowing a minor under the age of 16 to have an account unless they obtain parental consent.

When California attempted to ban the sale of violent video games to minors, the court rejected the argument that the law simply enforced parental authority, finding that what it actually did was impose government authority on minors, which a parent could then override.

Under House Bill 227, only social media companies with over $1 billion in ad revenue would be affected.

Those platforms would have to use their existing age estimation systems to identify who is under 16 on their sites.

Advocates in the tech industry say it's not possible.

Section two requires platforms to estimate users age with 80 to 90% confidence using only data they already possess, and then restrict accounts accordingly.

There is no commercially available technology that can reliably estimate a user's age from behavioral data alone.

At that confidence level to even attempt compliance, platforms will be pressured to collect far more personal data than they currently do.

The bill's supporters argue the technology does already exist, according to testimony from companies like Meta and Google.

In terms of the age estimation, my understanding is how it works is within about 170 likes.

Google has admitted that they can identify within a very close age range, how old the user is, based on everything already collecting about their users.

And so there's I heard a statistic about a 97% accuracy rate, among the tech platform.

Still, bars raised concern that the technology was not accurate enough to make claims with high legal stakes, such as the requirements in House Bill 227.

The bill passed committee favorably, but some supporters of the measure still expressed uneasiness with the bill's effect on privacy and free speech.

I've got a lot of concerns with this bill and the details of the bill from privacy, cybersecurity, constitutionality and speech issues, but I'm voting yes.

I'm done with social media.

I'm done with these manipulative algorithms.

I'm done with the way they treat children.

The attorney general's office also testified in favor of the bill.

The AG would be responsible for holding the social media companies accountable.

If the bill were to become law.

For Kentucky Edition, I'm Mackenzie Spink.

Thank you.

Mackenzie.

According to the bill's sponsor, State Representative Matt Lockett, every other piece of similar legislation in the country has been struck down in court.

He says this bill will be different because it doesn't attempt to legislate the content of a social media platform.